In a move that may feel familiar—if not wholly comforting—Governor Gavin Newsom has established the new California Housing and Homelessness Agency (CHHA) by splitting the existing Business, Consumer Services & Housing Agency into two parts, effective July 1, 2026. The administration claims this will “institutionalize” housing and homelessness as top priorities and streamline funding⁠—but conservatives should recognize that bureaucratic expansions like this rarely shrink government. Instead of empowering local control or reducing red tape, we’re adding another Sacramento-level entity that may replicate the inefficiencies we’ve seen elsewhere.

The CHHA’s creation echoes other state-run programs that appear well‑meaning but falter in execution. Take the Department of Motor Vehicles, which Californians despise for long waits, high staff turnover, and error-prone services. The state already struggles maintaining basic efficiency in licensing and renewals—so consumers have every reason to doubt that a powerful new housing agency, stuffed with multiple departments like CalHFA and civil‑rights oversight, will operate any more effectively. History shows: layering agencies on top of problems doesn’t solve them.

We’re also already managing myriad homelessness offices—from county task forces to DA-led encampment task units, plus the state’s own California Interagency Council on Homelessness. Despite billions spent (over $24 billion under this administration alone), homelessness has climbed, and yet the Governor still points fingers at locals . To sober conservatives, doubling‑down on layers of bureaucracy seems like doubling down on failure. Instead, we ought to dismantle redundant structures, cut waste, and return decision-making to towns and cities that deal with these issues on the ground.

California faces a genuine housing crisis—soaring costs, thousands headed to the streets—but the solution lies in unleashing market forces, empowering localities, reforming zoning, and reducing environmental and regulatory choke points like CEQA—not in creating scads of new bureaucracies. When a state feels compelled to form yet another agency to “institutionalize” problems, it’s a sign of ideological rigidity, not progress. Conservatives believe that solving affordability means pruning government, not proliferating it, and putting trust back into individuals and local leadership—not Sacramento’s latest oversight czar.